Public Forum cut short as ESC Meeting draws a crowd

The Council Chamber was overflowing with residents to hear from the public presenters and a very full Agenda with several contentious matters.

Ironically, when Council was about to hear a Notice of Motion from Cr Mayne about community consultation, the presenters were cut short due to time constraints, given only 4 minutes (from the regular 7) but were only told this a couple of hours before the meeting.

Before the Meeting, around 50 people assembled outside top hear from speakers on the ‘Climate Compensation to Protect Ratepayers’ motion and The Coopers Island Road matter. See pages 5 and 6.

There were three speakers against a 14 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision, public road and earthworks in Annetts Parade, Mossy Point, which used lot size averaging.

Pamela Green addressed Council saying “This is not simply a matter of whether the proposal fits within policy. Under Clause 4.1E (lot averaging), it asks something more. It asks whether you are satisfied that this subdivision will retain environmental values and result in no significant adverse environmental impact.”

She added “The site will still lose around 70% of its native vegetation. It will become fourteen lots – most below the minimum size. It relies on lot averaging. Lot averaging can allow development to step lightly – to gather in one place and leave another intact. But here, the pattern is spread. The pressure is spread. What remains will be irretrievably broken into smaller pieces.

The ecological case rests on retention – trees, corridors, canopy. But there is a difference between what remains, and what continues to function. The impact does not stop at what is cleared, it extends outwards beyond the cleared footprint through light, noise, and disturbance into what remains. This has not been fully accounted for in assessing habitat loss.

For the Yellow-bellied Glider and other vulnerable species, habitat depends on connection. Movement. Return. Continuity. When that breaks, the pattern changes.”

“The decision comes back to two questions –

Are you satisfied that the development proposal in its current form meets the intent of the C4 zone and are you satisfied that environmental values will be retained and that there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as required under Clause 4.1E?

This application asks you to accept that fragmented habitat, small urban lots, and long-term disturbance can coexist with ecological functionality. The evidence does not support that conclusion.

There is still a path through your decision today, where a redesigned development within the intent of the C4 zone, and the land and its life can coexist.”

Council Moved to defer the Matter while more clarification about the C4 zoning (Environmental Living) could be provided.